Search

FairAndUnbalanced is a WeBlog bringing focus to popular insights on top political issues from today's news media. FU puts you in the pundits' seat. Tell it like it is, and get strong reaction from others who agree or disagree. Either way, you can be assured that lively debate will ensue - and democratic values will be celebrated in a political forum that surpasses anything our forefathers ever envisioned! At FU, free speech honored to the fullest, intelligent dialogue on current events is welcomed, and people who are looking for drooling idiocy can just go somewhere else...

XML Feeds

I suppose if the poor lost Governor of Texas is going to be kicked one more time, it might as well be by a fellow Texan,. Manifesto Joe of Texas Blues issues a rollicking rant about Governor Rick Perry and offers a thought or two about the poor befuddled souls who elected him. Do you suppose they now say Oops?

Ned Williams at WisdomIsVindicated is back (Yaaayyy!!!!) with thoughts on whether Rick Santorum is likeable. I dunno. He's personable and is honest, to the extent of blurting out whatever is on his mind. That makes him different from Pat Buchanan, who also blurts, and Mitt Romney, who also is personable. I've been friends with folks who hold views more objectionable than are his.

Max's Dad bids a fond farewell to Pat Buchanan. And he truly does seem fond of the former MSNBC sponsored bigot. I dunno. I agree with Max's dad that issues of whether America should have left Hitler alone, or whether Black people are the natural enemies of civilization are pretty much settled questions, and I don't see any moral obligation on the part of MSNBC to give him a platform and a paycheck. Max might like to have a beer with poor Pat, but I'd be satisfied to defend Buchanan's freedom of ugly speech from another table.

Michael John Scott at Mad Mike's America speculates (or at least reports speculation) about where Pat will next land. I have wondered the same thing before returning to apathy about a public figure who once said the evils of slavery were overstated. Still, Michael Medved continues to thrive.

Tommy Christopher of Mediaite fame examines the attacks by video smear artist Andrew Breitbart against Keith Olbermann's apparent denials that rapes occurred during Occupy camp outs. He finds that any validity is lost amid a series of overreaches and lies by Breitbart. This is just one of a series of recent observations by Tommy in which he abandons what had seemed to me a once fawning approach toward Mr. Breitbart. Tommy has a talent for accuracy. He shares that with many journalists. Problem is, they stop at that water's edge. Tommy often puts forth an extra effort that includes fact checking and truth telling.

Ryan (I think) at Secular Ethics explains what is ethical and what is not when it comes to covering contraception. I admit he kind of loses me when he insists that a moral objection must be based on the physical world.

Slant Right's John Houk is in an internet fight with the owner of the server that hosted his blog. The fellow took down John's website, so John moved it. Lots of discussion of censorship, a stepson (I'm unclear about whether this is literal), and whether Muslims, atheists, or Christians are inherently evil. Maybe this is a family spat? Might be entertaining in a Housewives of DC sort of way.

PZ Myers, writing for Pharyngula, explains, sincerely and emotionally, why he is unalterably opposed to religion. Among his observations: "Religious people don’t have a satisfying answer about why God allows so much pain and suffering." He's right. We don't. Being a gentleman, he skips over an even more devastating argument. We don't have an adequate explanation for evil with ourselves.

5 comments

I read the esteemed Mr. Houk's article, which I found to be benign when compared with most.

He simply explained that hating Muslims is OK because they are worthy of hate. He careful explained hatred of those who deserve hatred is not hate, or something like that. I got all confused by Houk Reason.

You wrote: "Ryan (I think) at Secular Ethics explains what is ethical and what is not when it comes to covering contraception. I admit he kind of loses me when he insists that a moral objection must be based on the physical world."

I mean that one must be able to convincingly show how a moral transgression would cause unjustifiable harm. In order to do so, one must be able to point to effects in the physical world.

In contrast, one cannot show that some behavior is wrong simply by pointing to a passage from some sacred text. This is insufficient justification for a few reasons:

1.) We have a diverse society with a secular government.

2.) The sacred text has to be established as true beyond reasonable doubt before we can take it seriously as a basis for law.

3.) "God says so" is not a rationally compelling argument unless it is accompanied with an explanation of why God says so.